P. 1


# OAR Box 1784 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 44 ) ll-B-3 Docket Number: 

# A-84-4 4

Printed 10/31/2008 8:05:40 AM Sheet 44 of 143P. 2 

## ^ " v— vA-84-4*
' , ? g% \ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y I *&?7

* Ofi\ce o fAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s j£ ~"£ > - ^ V**^ / Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1



## • " 1 1 

## DE C 198 4
MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Meetin g Report : Refiner yFue l Ga s NSP S Revie wKickof fMeetin g (83/03 ) FROM : Nanc

yD
. McLaughlin , Environmenta l Enginee rsftM&'yWf^ Standard s Documentatio n Section , IS B (MD-13 ) 3 TO : Kennet h R
. Durkee , Chie f

Standard s Documentatio n Section , IS B (MD-13 ) 

### I . PURPOSE : Th e purpos e o f thi s meetin g wa s t o revie wth e draf t wor k pla nfo r th e refiner yfue l ga s NSP S revie wandt o discus s anyadditiona l issue s tha t ma yaffec t thi s review . II . TIM E AN D PLACE : 2:00-3:30 , Octobe r 17 , 198 4 7t hFloo r Conferenc e Roo m N.C . Mutua l Building , Durham , N.C . III . ATTENDEES : Industria l Studie s Branc h Sta nCuff e Ke nDurke e Nanc yMcLaughli n Charli e Sedma n Emissio nMeasuremen t Branc h Georg e Wals h/ Standard s Developmen t Branc h Gai l Lac y Economi c Analysi s Branc h Do. nGillett e Al Weh eP. 3



### IV . DISCUSSIO NAN D DECISIONS : A . Backgroun d Prio r t o th e meeting , a draf t wor k pla nwa s distributed-t o al l attendees . Th e draf t wor k pla npresented : 1
. Summar

yo fcurren tNSPS
. 2
. Summar

yo fissue s raise d bypreviou s review
. 3
. Additiona l issue s raise d durin g preliminar yinformatio n gathering
. 4
. Outlin e o farea s o fwork
. 5
. Schedul e fo rproject
. B
. Clau s Sulfu rPlan tStandar d Th e interrelationshi p o fth e refiner yfue l ga s an d Clau s sulfu rplan t NSPS' s was discussed
. Th e fue l ga s NSP S i s base d o n th e us e o famin e treater s t o clea n th e H2S fro m th e fue l gas . A n amin e treate rproduce s a secondar y ga s wast e strea m wit h ver yhig h concentration s o fH2S , whic h i s usuall y sen tt o a Clau s sulfu rplan to rsulfuri caci d plan tt o recove rth e sulfur
. Thes e sulfu rplant s als o produc e wast e "tai l gas " stream s tha tar e regulate d byth e sulfu rplan tNSPS
. Th e entir e sulfu rtreatmen tsyste m i s ofte n purchase d an d installe d a s on e unit , (amin e treater , sulfu rplant , tai l ga s unit) , s o i ti s difficul tt o segregat e cost s fo reac h part
. Charli e Sedma n fel tth e revie wo fth e refiner yfue l ga s an d sulfu rplan tNSPS' s shoul d b e combine d int o on e overal l revie wprocess . H e fel ttha tthi s woul d b e a more realisti capproach , especiall ytowar d th e cost/effectivenes s o fth e emissio n reduction
. Dec i s i on : Thi s i s somewhata moo tissu e sinc e th e Clau s sulfu rplan t revie wha s alread ybee n completed ; thu s th e refiner yfue l ga s revie wmus t b e don e separately
. However , on e resul to fthi s revie wma yb e t o recommen d tha tth e tw o review s b e combine d nex ttime
. C
. Othe rRelate d Standard s an d Possibl e Conflict s Thi s discussio n was abou tth e genera l interrelationshi p o fth e refiner y fue l ga s NSP

S an d othe rNSPS's
. Th e combustio n source s a ta refiner yma y als o b e regulate d unde rSubpar tD , Subpar tDb , o rth e ne wproces s heate r •NSPS whic h i s unde rdevelopment
. Althoug h thi s ma yb e undesirable , ther e doe s no tappea rt o b e an yconflict
. Charli e Sedman note d a philosphica l conflic ti n tha tcurrentl ysom e combustio n source s a trefinerie s ar e regulate d onl yfo rSO 2 du e fro m burnin g fue l gas ; SO 2 emission s fro m fue l o i l an d soli d fuel s ar e no talway s regulate d byothe rNSPS' s althoug h thei remissio n contributio n ma yb e more significant
.P. 4

Decision : These tw o issue s ar e interesting , bu toutsid e th e scop e o fthi s NSP

S review
. A

s outline d i n th e wor k plan , thi s revie wwil l focu s on th e narrowe rissu e o fSO 2 emission s du e onl yt o burnin g fue l gas . Projec tengineer s o n th e othe rNSPS' s wil l b e consulte d t o ensur e ther e i s n o direc tconflic tbetwee n standards
. D . Othe r Pollutant s Th e curren t standar d fo r refiner yfue l ga s combustio ndevice s regulate s onl ySO 2 emissions ; othe r pollutant s (particulates , N0 X , CO , and VOC ) ar e no t addressed . Som e o f thes e othe r pollutant s ar e o r ma yb e regulate d unde r othe r NSPS's . Th e previou s revie wdi d no t addres s thes e othe r pollutants , an d n o on e i n th e meetin g ha d a fee l fo r th e significanc e o f thes e othe r pollutants . Decision : Thi s i s beyon d th e scop e o f th e curren t review , and th e focu s wil l remai no n SO 2 emissions . However , anydat a and emissio n estimate s tha t ar e availabl e o n othe r pollutant s wil l b e requested . On e goa l fo r thi s revie wprojec t wil l b e t o decid e whethe r o r no t t o recommen d furthe r studyi n th'i s area , no t t o prepar e a n emissio nstandar d fo r these ' othe r pollutants . E
. Economi cAnalysi s Usually , i n NSP S revie wprojects , onl ycost s o f contro l and emissio n reduction s ar e determine d i n orde r t o calculat e cost/effectivenes s o f th e regulation . A l Weh e suggeste d tha t a n economi c analysi s ste p b e adde d t o th e revie wprocess . Sta nCuff e indicate d tha t thi s wa s a majo r chang e i n ou r polic ytowar d revie wstudies , and woul d se t a preceden t fo r futur e NSP S reviews . Ke n Durke e wa s concerne d abou t th e additiona l dat a gathering , cost , an d tim e neede d fo r this . H e als o indicate d tha t NSP S revie wi s suppose d t o b e mor e lik e a "screenin g study " wit hrecommendations fo r follow-u p detaile d wor k a s needed . However , EAB stil l fel t som e for mo f economi c analysi s wa s appropriat e fo r NSP S revie wprojects , bu t perhap s i na les s comple xan d les s rigorou s manne r tha ndon e fo r newl ydevelope d standards . Decision : Thi s decisio nneed s t o b e mad e a t th e Divisio nDirecto r level . Addin g an economi c analysi s woul d increas e th e amoun t o f dat a gatherin g and analysi s and ma ylengthe nth e revie wschedule ; however , i t coul d provid e usefu l informatio n(suc ha s siz e cutoff s - se e below) . Thi s woul d b e a significan t additio nt o thi s draf t wor k plan . F . Siz e Cutof f Th e regulatio ndoe s no t includ e a lowe r siz e cutoff . Th e origina l standar d wa s base d o n amin e treating , bu t amin e treatin g unit s wit h associate d sulfu r plant s ma yno t b e practica l fo r ver ysmal l sources .P. 5

Charli e Sedma nadde d tha t a lowe r siz e cutof f wa s include d fo r Clau s sulfu r plant s (2 0 tons/day) . Possibl e approache s t o a lowe r siz e cutof f woul d b e base d o ntota l refiner ysize , tota l refiner ySO 2 emissio ndu e t o burnin g o f H2 S i nfue l gas , siz e o f individua l affecte d combustio nsources , o r combine d size s o f al l affecte d combustio nsource s i non e refinery . Rathe r tha nbasin g th e cutof f solel yo ncost/effectiveness , A l Weh e an d Do n Gillett e (EAB ) fel t thi s wa s a nare a wher e a neconomi c analysi s coul d b e useful . Decision : I t wa s agree d tha t thi s issu e need s t o b e investigate d further . W e wil l decid e i f siz e -cutof f i s a problem . However , determinin g a lowe r siz e cu t of f woul d b e difficul t and ma yb e beyon d th e scop e o f th e revie wproject . W e wil l gathe r informatio no nth e cost s and technica l capabilitie s o f amin e treater s an d alternativ e contro l processe s fo r smalle r sources . G . Flu e Ga s Desulfurizatio n(FGD ) Th e standar d allow s a refiner yowne r t o pu t anFG D o nth e outle t o f a combustio nsourc e t o contro l SO 2 emission s rathe r tha ncontrollin g th e H2 S a t th e inlet . T o date , w e kno wo f n o refiner ytha t ha s selecte d thi s complianc e option . Charli e Sedma nindicate d tha t this'woul d b e a nexpensive , compliance-optio nfo r individua l combustio nsources , bu t tha t i t woul d b e relativel yinexpensiv e t o rout e th e outle t emission s t o a nexistin g FG D o na FCCU . Decision : Investigat e t o se e i f anyrefinerie s hav e chose nth e FG D optio nan d why , a s outline d i nth e draf t wor k plan . H . Natura l Ga s Blendin g Th e regulatio nallow s a refiner yowne r t o blen d natura l ga s wit h refiner yfue l ga s prio r t o th e combustio nsource , and thu s dilutin g th e H2 S concentratio nt o anacceptabl e level . Sta nCuff e commente d tha t thi s provisio nwa s no t originallyinclude d t o allo wdilutio nan d circumvention o f th e standard . Instead , i t wa s include d becaus e refinerie s nee d t o us e natura l ga s a s a nauxiliar ybacku p ga s t o provid e constan t flo wt o certai n combustio nsource s (suc ha s proces s heaters) . I t i s no t know nho wmuc h refinerie s blen d natura l ga s wit hrefiner yfue l ga s t o achiev e th e standard , and th e previou s revie wprovide s n o informatio no nthi s area . Gai l Lac y suggeste d adjustin g th e standar d s o a refiner ywoul d no t ge t an yadvantag e o r credi t fro mdilutio nwit hnatura l gas . Dec i s i on : Investigat e ho wmuc hnatura l ga s blendin g i s don e b y "refineries , wh yi s i t done , ho wi t affect s emissions , and i f th e standar d shoul d b e adjusted . Thi s i s anissu e tha t wil l b e studie d a s par t o f th e NSP S review .P. 6

I . Continuou s Monitorin g Th e regulatio nrequire s a continuou s H2 S monito r a t th e inle t o f a combustio n source , bu t becaus e performanc e specification s hav e no t bee n promulgate d byEPA , monitorin g i s no t ye t required . IER L complete d a studyi n 198 2 o f fiv e commerciall yavailabl e monitor s and conclude d tha t non e coul d mee t th e necessar yperformanc e criteria . Georg e Wals hdi d no t fee l i t woul d b e fruitfu l t o continu e t o requir e continuou s monitor s o r t o as k IER L t o restud yth e issue , and suggeste d tha t alternativ e monitorin g approache s b e investigate d (suc ha s periodi c performanc e tests , gra b samples , etc.) . However , continuou s H2 S monitor s ar e use d fo r operatio n and maintenanc e b

yman yrefineries , the yar e require d i nsom e part s o f California , and the yar e relie d o na s warnin g device s fo r lo wconcentration s o f H2 S i nambien t air . Nanc yMcLaughli nsuggeste d tha t perhap s H2 S continuou s monitor s coul d b e use d a s indicator s o r t o monito r gros s violations , and thu s les s stringen t performanc e criteri a coul d b e applied . Decision : Adefinit e decisio nwa s mad e t o investigat e alternative s t o th e presen t continuou s monitorin g requiremen t rathe r tha njus t repeatin g th e presen t requiremen t and hopin g tha t ne wmonitorin g technolog ywil l eventuall yprovid e a nacceptabl e monitor . Th e experience s o f refinerie s usin g continuou s monitor s an d other monitorin g approache s wil l b e investigated . Th e amoun t o f EM B involvemen t wa s no t decided . J . Othe r Sulfu r Compound s Th e standar d regulate s H2 S level s i nth e inle t gas ; Metho d 1 1 measure s H2S ; an d th e continuou s monitor s sens e H2S . However , othe r compound s containin g sulfu r ma yb e presen t (CS2 , COS , sulfides , mercaptans ) and wil l .produc e SO 2 emission s whe ncombusted . Charli e Sedma nagree d wit hth e curren t approac ht o regulat e onl yH2 S a s a surrogat e fo r al l sulfu r compounds , becaus e H2 S i s b

yfa r th e primar ycontaminant , and h e believe s th e relativ e proportio no f th e differen t sulfu r compound s i s constant . However , recen t literatur e suggest s tha t th e proportio ni s no t constant , bu t varie s wit h th e crud e feedstoc k and up-strea mrefinin g processes . Also , amin e treater s ca npreferentiall ytrea t certai naci d gase s and sulfu r compound s b yusin g differen t amin e chemicals . Th e previou s revie wdi d no t addres s emission s du e t o other sulfu r compounds , and ther e seem s t o b e littl e informationreadil yavailabl e tha t ca n b e use d t o determin e th e emissio nimpac t o f thes e othe r sulfu r compounds . Decision : Gathe r th e informatio ntha t i s availabl e and estimat e i f ther e i s a significan t impac t o nemissions . Th e goa l fo r thi s revie w projec t wil l b e t o decid e whethe r o r no t t o recommen d furthe r study . Changin g th e regulatio nt o tota l sulfu r woul d probabl yrequir e sourc e testing , mayb e a ne wtes t method , and a detaile d cos t and economi c analysis . Th e focu s wil l remai no nH2S .